Allahabad High Court
AJEET SINGH @ LALU @ LAMBUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajeet Singh alias Lalu alias Lambu, who is charged under Sections 305A, 331(4) and 317(5) of the BNS for alleged theft and dealing in stolen property. The applicant contended that the allegations are false, that the stolen articles recovered from him are insufficient proof, and that his five prior criminal cases have been explained. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The Court examined the evidence and found no cogent proof of habitual dealing in stolen property under Section 317(4) BNS, noting that the other offences are triable by a magistrate and the applicant has been in pre‑trial detention for over six months. Considering the lack of strong evidence and the applicant's explained criminal history, the Court held that he is entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions restricting tampering with evidence and further criminal activity.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant should be granted bail despite allegations of theft and alleged habitual dealing in stolen property under Section 317(4) of the BNS.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history and six‑month pre‑trial detention justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 305A, 317(5), 331(4)
Subjects
- bail
- theft
- habitual dealing in stolen property
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal history
- Section 317(4) BNS
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6171 of 2026
Ajeet Singh @ Lalu @ Lambu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Vibhor Singh, Karunesh Pratap
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Anand Vibhor Singh, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2025, under Sections
305A, 331(4), 317(5) of BNS, Police Station- Gajner, District- Kanpur
Dehat, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, as per
allegation, applicant committed theft in the house of the informant and
even stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the
applicant but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are
totally false.
4. He further submits, actually applicant was having criminal history of
five other cases, therefore, during investigation, he has been
implicated in the present matter. He next submits, his entire criminal
history of five cases have been explained.
5. He further submits except offence under Section 317(4) of BNS,
all the offences are triable by Magistrate with maximum punishment
of seven years and there is no cogent evidence which can suggest
that applicant is habitual in dealing with stolen property and,
therefore, prima facie, offence under Section 317(4) BNS is not made
BAIL No. 6171 of 2026
2
out against the applicant. He further submits, he is in jail in the
present matter since 09.10.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.
6. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer but could
not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel
for the applicant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
8. However, as per allegation, applicant involved in commission of
theft in the house of the applicant and he was also habitual in dealing
with stolen property but except offence under Section 317(4) BNS, all
the offences are triable by the Magistrate and after considering the
entire material available on record, this Court finds merit in the
argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is
no cogent evidence against the applicant with regard to the offence
under Section 317(4) BNS.
9. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having
criminal history of five other cases but his entire criminal history of
five cases have been explained and in the present matter, applicant
is in jail since 09.10.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.
10. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on
bail.
11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant- Ajeet Singh alias Lalu alias Lambu be
released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
BAIL No. 6171 of 2026
3
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution
will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for
cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the
facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail
application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 12, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…